Menu
▾
▴
webadmin-list
|
From: Joe C. <jo...@sw...> - 2005-09-14 19:54:37
|
Hi all, I just wanted to give folks here on the list a quick heads up about a new project that Jamie and I have been working on for a few months. It is a version of Virtualmin intended for professional hosting environments and is called, shockingly enough, Virtualmin Professional. In order to answer the requirements of commercial hosting providers (i.e. reliable support, automated installation and updates, extremely tight security practices, a branded product that is saleable, integration with other tools like billing, and a nice consistent theme or two or three or six), we've founded a new company called Virtualmin, Inc. We've released an Early Adopter version for sale on the website (heavily discounted, to reward those who are willing to suffer through being an early adopter) for RHEL, CentOS, and Fedora operating systems. We plan to wrap up installers for a half dozen more systems over the next few days. I can also answer a couple questions that are probably springing into some peoples minds: - The GPL version of Virtualmin will continue to exist and be maintained. In fact, we'll be rolling up a new release in a few days. Virtualmin GPL features will trail the Professional version by some amount, but the GPL version will always get bugfixes and security fixes on the same schedule as the Professional version. We are not holding Virtualmin GPL users over a barrel to upgrade to the commercial version, we're merely offering an upgraded version with some features and benefits that some folks will find useful. - This doesn't effect Webmin or Usermin in any way, and development will continue at the same pace it always has. - Plugin Modules will tend to be compatible across both versions, and many of the new features we're planning will be added via plugin modules (most of which will also be free and under a GPL license). Anyway, if you're a Virtualmin user (or would like to be but haven't been able to due to lack of the above-mentioned reasons), you might find like to visit us at http://www.virtualmin.com and see if Virtualmin Professional is a good choice for you. There are forums, where one can discuss both versions of Virtualmin, along with a lot of new documentation and other stuff...more features to the site are being added all the time. Feel free to stop by, sign up, and join in. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact me. BTW-If you were a Virtualmin Sponsor in the past, and you haven't heard from me personally, please drop me an email. Other folks who've donated to Virtualmin in the past will also be hearing from me this week. Thanks for reading! Regards, Joe |
|
From: Craig W. <cra...@az...> - 2005-09-14 22:41:27
|
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 14:57 -0500, Joe Cooper wrote: > Hi all, > > I just wanted to give folks here on the list a quick heads up about a > new project that Jamie and I have been working on for a few months. It > is a version of Virtualmin intended for professional hosting > environments and is called, shockingly enough, Virtualmin Professional. > > In order to answer the requirements of commercial hosting providers > (i.e. reliable support, automated installation and updates, extremely > tight security practices, a branded product that is saleable, > integration with other tools like billing, and a nice consistent theme > or two or three or six), we've founded a new company called Virtualmin, Inc. > > We've released an Early Adopter version for sale on the website (heavily > discounted, to reward those who are willing to suffer through being an > early adopter) for RHEL, CentOS, and Fedora operating systems. We plan > to wrap up installers for a half dozen more systems over the next few days. > > I can also answer a couple questions that are probably springing into > some peoples minds: > > - The GPL version of Virtualmin will continue to exist and be > maintained. In fact, we'll be rolling up a new release in a few days. > Virtualmin GPL features will trail the Professional version by some > amount, but the GPL version will always get bugfixes and security fixes > on the same schedule as the Professional version. We are not holding > Virtualmin GPL users over a barrel to upgrade to the commercial version, > we're merely offering an upgraded version with some features and > benefits that some folks will find useful. > > - This doesn't effect Webmin or Usermin in any way, and development will > continue at the same pace it always has. > > - Plugin Modules will tend to be compatible across both versions, and > many of the new features we're planning will be added via plugin modules > (most of which will also be free and under a GPL license). > > Anyway, if you're a Virtualmin user (or would like to be but haven't > been able to due to lack of the above-mentioned reasons), you might find > like to visit us at http://www.virtualmin.com and see if Virtualmin > Professional is a good choice for you. > > There are forums, where one can discuss both versions of Virtualmin, > along with a lot of new documentation and other stuff...more features to > the site are being added all the time. Feel free to stop by, sign up, > and join in. > > If you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact me. > > BTW-If you were a Virtualmin Sponsor in the past, and you haven't heard > from me personally, please drop me an email. Other folks who've donated > to Virtualmin in the past will also be hearing from me this week. > ---- good for you guys - I think that is a logical extension of the webmin/virtualmin product. Hosting is not my thing so I haven't played with virtualmin at all in any form. It does seem to me from my reasonably good familiarity with webmin and my minimal familiarity with usermin that: - webmail at my last look was very minimal and should support things like IMAP folders/IMAP logins - Better LDAP management/integration - Better Cyrus integration - especially because cyrus-imapd is such a natural for virtual users/virtual domains - Support for Sieve editing by users Not that I haven't been able to make good use of webmin but I have pretty much eschewed usermin in favor of Horde 3/IMP 4/Ingo etc. because it fills the gaps of Sieve/IMAP and a much more robust webmail interface. Just thought I would pass along my comments. Craig |
|
From: Joe C. <jo...@sw...> - 2005-09-15 21:57:52
|
Craig White wrote: > ---- > good for you guys - I think that is a logical extension of the > webmin/virtualmin product. Thanks for the encouragement! We felt that way too. It just became apparent that it was the best way to answer the needs of commercial hosting providers, without causing any pain to users of the GPL version. And thanks for all of the good advice. I'll comment on each bit inline below. > Hosting is not my thing so I haven't played with virtualmin at all in > any form. > > It does seem to me from my reasonably good familiarity with webmin and > my minimal familiarity with usermin that: > > - webmail at my last look was very minimal and should support things > like IMAP folders/IMAP logins Usermin supports (straight from the Usermin Folders page): - System folders like Inbox, Drafts and Sent Mail that always exist. - Folders in in the mail directory that can be created or deleted by Usermin. - Other files or directories that can be managed as folders by Usermin. - POP3 accounts on other servers that can be treated as folders. - IMAP accounts on other servers. - Composite folders, which combine two or more other folders into a single list. - Virtual folders, which contain a selection of mail from others. Usermin mail rocks. And with the new theme, it is close to being as good looking as any other webmail product on the market--I've got some other stuff up my sleeve on the look-and-feel front, too, so webmail is going to get a lot nicer to use in the coming months, hopefully without losing any of the clean simplicity and flexibility of the current interface. Usermin has been my favorite webmail client for years because of its clean and simple design, but I know some folks like the flash of Squirrel, Horde, etc. so I'll address that too. ;-) > - Better LDAP management/integration Currently, the Virtualmin LDAP support is limited to a couple of specific use cases, which cover what we've had people request specifically...but not all LDAP use cases. In short, users and groups in LDAP are supported, and QMail+LDAP is supported for mail users and aliases (though I should note that Virtualmin Professional bundles Postfix, and QMail will never be an included package for Virtualmin Professional--so, technically, this use case doesn't apply to Virtualmin Professional unless you jump through a few hoops to replace Postfix as the mail server). We have an open wish in the bug tracker to add support for Postfix+LDAP for aliases and other stuff. It is likely it will happen in the next couple-few weeks, as it isn't a huge task and LDAP is popular in some types of mass-hosting environments. If anyone has any specific use case examples of using LDAP in a virtual hosting environment, I'd certainly like to hear about it. Specifics are much easier to develop for than generic "more <feature>" goals. > - Better Cyrus integration - especially because cyrus-imapd is such a > natural for virtual users/virtual domains We won't be supporting Cyrus, I'm afraid, unless there is real widespread customer demand for it. We've chosen Dovecot as our IMAP/POP3 server. I know of no compelling reason to support Cyrus over Dovecot, but I'm willing to be wrong. I've tried them all, and Dovecot is a gorgeous example of elegant design applied to a mundane but absolutely necessary task...very fast, zero maintenance, extremely reliable, historically very secure, supports LDAP (and SQL if someone were sick enough to go down that path for mail), and standards compliant. And it works great for virtual hosting environments with a lot of flexibility. > - Support for Sieve editing by users Never touched it, though it sounds nice in theory. We've got comprehensive Procmail rule editing support--but it is extremely intimidating for normal users (even some PhDs I know are afraid of Procmail). However, I have a hard time imagining that normal users would find any kind of comprehensive Sieve editing any less intimidating than the current Procmail interface. Sieve just doesn't look like a user-level solution for anyone other than you and I and people like us. My mom will never use Sieve directly and it would be madness for me to try to convince her to use it directly. Since we can put an easy/safe GUI on either Procmail or Sieve, it's irrelevant to the end user what we use. What it comes down to is that direct editing of a text-based email processing rules language is just not something normal users are going to do. Something a customer suggested that I think would be nice is import of existing filters from Mozilla or Outlook. Though, because these things are stored way deep down in the users home directory and offer no "export" feature, it would be quite ornery to actually walk a user through the process of finding their filter file and uploading it. Maybe we just need to emulate the filter creation model of Thunderbird and/or Outlook, so that users can create filters in Usermin using an interface they already are familiar with. Whether it generates Sieve rules or procmail rules is somewhat irrelevant to the user. I think in this case, Sieve would be a solution looking for a problem, since we already have a mail rule processor in place for mail that is more powerful (of course, Sieve is less powerful by design--but we can restrict access to the power of procmail as needed, while we can't make Sieve more powerful as needed). In short, I don't see what our non-computer nerd users could possibly gain by having Sieve support. They definitely need filter configuration (which is not very easy to use in Usermin currently, I will concede), but what language those rules are written in is wholly a question for the software developer...not the end user. The end user should never have to see a programming language, even one that is as simple as Sieve. For you and me, Sieve would be awesome. For Virtualmin users, it would be as pointless as the Procmail interface in Usermin currently is. But, again, I'm willing to be wrong. > Not that I haven't been able to make good use of webmin but I have > pretty much eschewed usermin in favor of Horde 3/IMP 4/Ingo etc. because > it fills the gaps of Sieve/IMAP and a much more robust webmail > interface. Define "robust"? What's missing from Usermin's webmail that makes it less appealing to you (other than IMAP and Sieve, if anything)? Whatever it is we'd like to address it. ;-) I've found that quite a few webmail apps rely on an extra SQL database for storage of indexes or other random crud. I find this to be a very fragile design decision...If you're going to use an extra database in a project that isn't a database-driven app (i.e. one in which the database is core to the functionality), it ought to be an embedded database like SQLite or BerkeleyDB...no configuration, no setup, no maintenance. Running a mail server simply should not require database maintenance. This seems a common and nearly fatal flaw in a lot of webmail applications, IMHO, no matter how nice they might look otherwise. > Just thought I would pass along my comments. And they are greatly appreciated. Thanks! Regards, Joe |
|
From: Barry <we...@i1...> - 2005-09-16 01:42:19
|
Joe Cooper wrote: > Craig White wrote: > >> ---- >> good for you guys - I think that is a logical extension of the >> webmin/virtualmin product. > > > Thanks for the encouragement! We felt that way too. It just became > apparent that it was the best way to answer the needs of commercial > hosting providers, without causing any pain to users of the GPL version. > > And thanks for all of the good advice. I'll comment on each bit > inline below. Glad this thread is continuing because I was wondering a bit more this morning and hadn't had a chance to followup today. I am all for you guys making money, and if this is related to the Open Country announcement then so be it, But I wonder how it is justified under the terms of GPL? If the original code is GPL, isn;t all derivative code, and and with few exceptions with ways of linking, everything attached to it GPL? And doesn't GPL require products that are released to customers, such as professional ISPs to install on their own machines surely will get, isn't it required that code be made available? Also, isn't it also the case that GPL requires availability to all when the product (and code) is released, not on a preferential treatment? Now, I know you can charge for the reproduction or service of copying the product and code, and you can charge what the market will bear. But the product is still GPL and others can make the same product available at whatever cost they deem appropriate. Maybe here is something more I am missing here - I woke up this morning really hoping to find out webmin is actually BSD licensed, in which case you would not need to disclose code and could have proprietary forks. Sadly that doesn;t seem to be the case. So I am confused - what's the deal here? Best, Barry |
|
From: Freddie C. <fca...@sd...> - 2005-09-16 02:34:15
|
> Joe Cooper wrote: >> Craig White wrote: >>> ---- >>> good for you guys - I think that is a logical extension of the >>> webmin/virtualmin product. >> Thanks for the encouragement! We felt that way too. It just >> became apparent that it was the best way to answer the needs of >> commercial hosting providers, without causing any pain to users of >> the GPL version. >> And thanks for all of the good advice. I'll comment on each bit >> inline below. > Glad this thread is continuing because I was wondering a bit more > this morning and hadn't had a chance to followup today. > I am all for you guys making money, and if this is related to the > Open Country announcement then so be it, > But I wonder how it is justified under the terms of GPL? If the > original code is GPL, isn;t all derivative code, and and with few > exceptions with ways of linking, everything attached to it GPL? They write they code. The develop the product. They release the product. They choose the license. There's nothing stopping the programmers from dual-licensing the product. You want the features in VirtualMin Pro, then you get the commercial license (with or without the source is irrelevant). Or, you wait a few months/years until those features hit the GPL'd VirtualMin release. This is virtually the same config as TrollTech uses for QT, and MySQL AB uses for MySQL, and that Daniel Baron uses for DansGuardian. > And doesn't GPL require products that are released to customers, such > as professional ISPs to install on their own machines surely will get, > isn't it required that code be made available? Only if it's released under the GPL. If it is released under a different license, this is moot. Granted, I haven't looked too deeply at the VirtualMin Pro site, so take the above with a grain of salt. :) --=20 Freddie Cash, CCNT CCLP Helpdesk / Network Support Tech. School District 73 (250) 377-HELP [377-4357] fc...@sd... hel...@sd... |
|
From: <ra...@si...> - 2005-09-16 02:51:05
|
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Barry wrote: > Joe Cooper wrote: > >> Craig White wrote: >> >>> ---- >>> good for you guys - I think that is a logical extension of the >>> webmin/virtualmin product. >> >> >> Thanks for the encouragement! We felt that way too. It just became >> apparent that it was the best way to answer the needs of commercial hosting >> providers, without causing any pain to users of the GPL version. >> >> And thanks for all of the good advice. I'll comment on each bit inline >> below. > > > Glad this thread is continuing because I was wondering a bit more this > morning and hadn't had a chance to followup today. > > I am all for you guys making money, and if this is related to the Open > Country announcement then so be it, > > But I wonder how it is justified under the terms of GPL? If the original code > is > GPL, isn;t all derivative code, and and with few exceptions with ways of > linking, everything attached to it GPL? > > And doesn't GPL require products that are released to customers, such as > professional ISPs to install on their own machines surely will get, isn't it > required that code be made available? > > Also, isn't it also the case that GPL requires availability to all when the > product (and code) is released, not on a preferential treatment? > > Now, I know you can charge for the reproduction or service of copying the > product and code, and you can charge what the market will bear. But the > product is still GPL and others can make the same product available at > whatever cost they deem appropriate. > > Maybe here is something more I am missing here - I woke up this morning > really hoping to find out webmin is actually BSD licensed, in which case you > would not need to disclose code and could have proprietary forks. Sadly that > doesn;t seem to be the case. > > So I am confused - what's the deal here? > > Best, > > Barry > The confusion is that Usermin is released under a BSD license. This is a bit different than a GPL (or even Sun's new CDDL). It does allow it's inclusion without causing other included items to become BSD licensed, and it also allows inclusion in GPL stuff without becoming GPL. ---- Randy |
|
From: Craig W. <cra...@az...> - 2005-09-16 03:51:24
|
On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 18:41 -0700, Barry wrote: > Joe Cooper wrote: > > > Craig White wrote: > > > >> ---- > >> good for you guys - I think that is a logical extension of the > >> webmin/virtualmin product. > > > > > > Thanks for the encouragement! We felt that way too. It just became > > apparent that it was the best way to answer the needs of commercial > > hosting providers, without causing any pain to users of the GPL version. > > > > And thanks for all of the good advice. I'll comment on each bit > > inline below. > > > Glad this thread is continuing because I was wondering a bit more this > morning and hadn't had a chance to followup today. > > I am all for you guys making money, and if this is related to the Open > Country announcement then so be it, > > But I wonder how it is justified under the terms of GPL? If the original > code is > GPL, isn;t all derivative code, and and with few exceptions with ways of > linking, everything attached to it GPL? > > And doesn't GPL require products that are released to customers, such as > professional ISPs to install on their own machines surely will get, > isn't it required that code be made available? > > Also, isn't it also the case that GPL requires availability to all when > the product (and code) is released, not on a preferential treatment? > > Now, I know you can charge for the reproduction or service of copying > the product and code, and you can charge what the market will bear. But > the product is still GPL and others can make the same product available > at whatever cost they deem appropriate. > > Maybe here is something more I am missing here - I woke up this morning > really hoping to find out webmin is actually BSD licensed, in which case > you would not need to disclose code and could have proprietary forks. > Sadly that doesn;t seem to be the case. > > So I am confused - what's the deal here? ---- you should have at least looked at the license before you commented. It's not GPL, it's BSD http://www.webmin.com/intro.html Furthermore, the sweat and the equity is to those that put it into it which as far as I know, has to be like at least 98% Jamie if not higher but only those who contributed code to it are entitled to question it and I doubt there are many who have earned that right. Lastly, if Jamie and Joe can prosper by taking their base and even devote more time and energy, then the code base would have to benefit so there's no reason to assume that it wouldn't be a winner all around. Clearly Jamie has the benefit of each and every doubt besides the gratitude for his generosity this far. If he decided to not develop it any further, I would presume that it could be forked under BSD restrictions. Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. |
|
From: Barry <we...@i1...> - 2005-09-16 06:06:07
|
Craig White wrote: > >---- >you should have at least looked at the license before you commented. >It's not GPL, it's BSD > >http://www.webmin.com/intro.html > > Yeah, I thought this morning that it would work better if it was BSD instead of GPL - that would be fine. But before I looked, Joe Cooper wrote (and I trust he should know): > Thanks for the encouragement! We felt that way too. It just became > apparent that it was the best way to answer the needs of commercial > hosting providers, without causing any pain to users of the GPL version. Hey wait , even though Joe wrote that, I followed your advice and checked - we are talking about virtual min, not webmin. And on http://www.swelltech.com/virtualmin/ it says: "09/12/2005 Virtualmin had gone Pro! Visit Virtualmin.com to find out more. We're now providing two versions of Virtualmin, one GPL and one proprietary with additional features. The GPL version will trail development of the proprietary version by some amount." and "07/23/2003 Ransom for the first milestone has been raised. Tye Gaddis and Hosting4Less.com were the contributors today who pushed us over the top! The current module has been released under a GPL license today. Kudos to all of the sponsors." So, the code base we are talking about has been GPL for 2+ years. I stand by my comments and questions. On what legal basis can GPL code be productized, released, and source code *not* made available? Not trying to stir up trouble, but with such a high profile project as this, it is important to not make any missteps that will misguide the community in what GPL actually means, and not to put the code at risk. This is interesting: "What's the license? Virtualmin is licensed under the GNU General Public License. Virtualmin is periodically ransomed off under a non-GPL license to fund major new developments. A $200, or higher, sponsorship is required for you to receive the module including the "ransom" features. You may then use the module in any way you see fit for commercial or non-commercial purposes. However, you cannot resell the module, relicense the module, or give away the module, without discussing it with us (and purchasing the rights to do so)." Is there any other history of other projects doing this, and having the general community that guards the GPL approve? Maybe there is, I don't know for sure. But I think you guys should look very closely at this model before jumping and creating a legal mess and expense for yourselves. And if you have it on some authority that it is fine, then can you please cite that authority so the rest of us can consider this method for promoting GPL code too? Here is an opinion from folks at Swelltech: http://www.swelltech.com/virtualmin/ransomware.html that cites no legal basis at all, but is filled with warm goodhearted intentions I wholly agree with. I would maintain that given otherwise, this "ransomware" concept is about as contrary to the spirit and the letter of GPL as you can get. It is quite simple really - you release the product to even one person, you must release the code under the GPL to them (and possibly to everyone?). Now, if it was called "Virtualmin Beta" instead of "Virtualmin Pro" you might be able to make the rhetorical case that the product isn't yet really released per se, but you didn't hear that from me because I believe that any GPL project should have a public anonymous-read source code control system with all available code :) >Furthermore, the sweat and the equity is to those that put it into it >which as far as I know, has to be like at least 98% Jamie if not higher >but only those who contributed code to it are entitled to question it >and I doubt there are many who have earned that right. > > That is a nice warm fuzzy but simply not true. The GPL is the GPL. You can read it at gnu.org. It doesn't say "some people have rights that others don't have". It says what it says. You simply can not fork a non-GPL branch off of a GPL code base. That is precisely the point of GPL. Otherwise, companies like JBOSS would do that in a second and they would have a completely different business model then they do. If you think anyone in the user base can not question what goes on, and make a difference, review the fiasco at the as-popular-as-webmin-and-maybe-more Mambo/Joomla split last month. See mamboserver.com discussion forums, and then opensourcematters.com (or .org not sure which) where the developers moved to first, and then to joomla.com where the developers landed. Try posting in those three places that the users have no say and no clout about the direction of the code and see what happens :) Unless you are RMS, who sees only the GPL and "everything else", you will see that this is the reason why other licenses exist. so, if the product is not GPL then it doesn't matter because the other license will allow what I was asking about and that is fine. Perhaps you think *I* have no standing in the matter, or that I am shooting in the breeze. You would be very wrong. I was one of the early development managers at Cobalt Networks deciding these issues every day. Cobalt was the first wildly successful company to blend open source (mostly but not all GPL) with proprietary code. The code served essentially the same functions that webmin and usermin does now: managing hosted Linux servers. And yes, I had my hands in an awful lot of it at the code level. I can offer quite a bit of insight into what makes people spend money on a product like this, and yes, I have been paid for writing, testing, and marketing this type of code for worldwide installations. >Lastly, if Jamie and Joe can prosper by taking their base and even >devote more time and energy, then the code base would have to benefit so >there's no reason to assume that it wouldn't be a winner all around. > > Agreed that they should be allowed to prosper if they can. But violating the license they chose would not be the right way to do it. I trust they are getting good advice on this matter from Open Country - I know folks there, and I hope they wouldn't blunder on this point. >Clearly Jamie has the benefit of each and every doubt besides the >gratitude for his generosity this far. If he decided to not develop it >any further, I would presume that it could be forked under BSD >restrictions. > > It is not an issue of benefit of the doubt. It is a matter of adhering to the license terms that were freely chosen. Maybe this is allowed, I am jsut asking for citations in the gnu community where they guard this kind of thing jealously, and have seen it all before. I highly doubt the gnu community would ever accept a bsd fork from gpl code being acceptable. I have been in meetings with companies such as Yahoo, Apple, Hotmail/Microsoft where they all raised the issue of the ability to fork BSD *nix without sharing back as the reason why they chose BSD instead of Linux. It could be forked within GPL though regardless of if Jamie or anyone else chooses to develop it or not. This is basically what happened with Mambo a few weeks ago, which you will recall I raised as an issue last week, before this Virtualmin announcement even occurred. As I understood the response, we were told no forks would happen. Yet only days later, we are told there will be, for the first time, a "professional" branch, and a non-professional branch. It was this kind of sloppiness in making announcements that caused the otherwise unnecessary (IMHO) hard feelings in the Mambo community. BTW, for potential developers of open source code: Consider the license you choose *very carefully*. What starts out as a hobby or jsut a few lines of code you give to the community may in fact be restricted form making you the kind of money that might be available to you later, sometimes much later, based on the early decision you made. Seriously. Best, Barry |
|
From: Joe C. <jo...@sw...> - 2005-09-16 15:25:11
|
Hi Barry and all, Sorry for jumping in a bit late in this licensing three. A guy's gotta sleep sometime. But, I can bring the license discussion to a satisfying conclusion for everyone with this one post. There is nothing to debate, as the legal issues are all very clear. The free version of Virtualmin (now called Virtualmin GPL to avoid confusion with Virtualmin Professional) is licensed under the GPL. The commercial version is copyrighted software and is not covered by the GPL. Jamie Cameron (and now Virtualmin, Inc., of which Jamie is a 50% shareholder) holds the entire copyright to the Virtualmin codebase, and thus it can be licensed in any way he (or the company) choose to license it, including a non-Open Source license. This does not conflict with the GPL, though it seems to be a common misconception that it does. The GPL is a license. A license dictates what folks who do not hold the copyright can do with code. It does not have any bearing on what the holder of the copyright can do with the code. We hold the copyright, and thus we are releasing a dual-licensed product, as Craig pointed out TrollTech, MySQL AB, and many others do in order to provide a commercial product along-side a non-commercial GPL product. We are not breaking new ground here, and there is no legal debate about whether a person who holds the copyright can license it in any way they like. This is a time-tested business model for predominantly Open Source companies. It is not the only one, but it is one that works and is well within the rights of copyright holders. There is no "legal mess" that we can get into, as we are the copyright holders. The GPL doesn't create an obligation in us to continue to provide all of our future work for free, nor does it obligate us to continue to license our work in the same way we have in the past. We are not altering the license of the already GPL version of Virtualmin, and we have no desire to do so. We are both Open Source fanatics and have been for far longer than it has been trendy to be so, and we will continue to work on Open Source projects (including Webmin, Usermin, and Virtualmin GPL). I hope this clears things up for anyone who might have questions about the license. I certainly encourage you to query legal council, if you reckon we (and MySQL AB and TrollTech and AMD and Perl Foundation and dozens or hundreds of other entities who offer products under the GPL and some other license, whether proprietary or otherwise) are all wrong about how we can license our own software. But I assure you there is no debate in the GNU community about dual-licensed code being permissible. In fact, there have been a number of official GNU projects (i.e. Ghostscript) that were dual-licensed. Nothing to debate here. Really. Regards, Joe |
|
From: Barry <we...@i1...> - 2005-09-16 19:00:33
|
Joe Cooper wrote: > Hi Barry and all, > > Sorry for jumping in a bit late in this licensing three. A guy's > gotta sleep sometime. Agreed - that last post of mine was right before I went to sleep. And jsut because I was not sure, after I sent it I googled some "dual licensing matters". > > But, I can bring the license discussion to a satisfying conclusion for > everyone with this one post. There is nothing to debate, as the legal > issues are all very clear. I don't think it is just so simple. But first let me make clear I wish you the best - web min is the first sw I install on new servers. > > The free version of Virtualmin (now called Virtualmin GPL to avoid > confusion with Virtualmin Professional) is licensed under the GPL. > > The commercial version is copyrighted software and is not covered by > the GPL. OK, so I know no lawyer told you this or to say this. GPL software is copyright software, just like all software that is not explicitly in the public domain. So right away I am not comfortable with where this is heading... > Jamie Cameron (and now Virtualmin, Inc., of which Jamie is a 50% > shareholder) holds the entire copyright to the Virtualmin codebase, I haven't seen the codebase, but are you sure? Every single line of code was either written by Jamie or has a written assignment of copyright to him? I am not sure, but it may be that others, or even I, have posted a line or two about a potential bug fix along the way, and that code made it into the code base. I think it safe to assume any code thus entered is GPL, but not safe to assume that any code thus entered is copyright by Jamie. Is there any such code? I remind you that it is the existence or non-existence of such small snippets of code that started the whole Caldera fiasco, so this is not a theoretical or hypothetical point. How do you *really* know the entire code base is copyright by Jamie? > and thus it can be licensed in any way he (or the company) choose to > license it, including a non-Open Source license. Assuming the copyright is held by Jamie, this is true only to a point. GPL'd code can not be "un-GPL'd". You can attach a dual license to it, but only within the constraints of GPL. In general, this mean that the license must not be *more restrictive* then GPL. Look at it this way please: If you are writing code to a GPL code base (which I am sure you agree you are), then any derivative works are GPLd by the definition of GPL. The Virtualmin Pro code is already GPL'd form the minute you release it. So a dual license would need to be compatible with that. Withholding code upon release of a fork is *not* GPL compatible. FSF would be happy to advise you on this, I am sure. There is already a section on their web site dealing with the issues of compatible and incompatible licenses. > > This does not conflict with the GPL, though it seems to be a common > misconception that it does. Having dual license does not conflict. Having the second license which conflicts with GPL is what is wrong here. > The GPL is a license. A license dictates what folks who do not hold > the copyright can do with code. It does not have any bearing on what > the holder of the copyright can do with the code. That is absolutely incorrect. The GPL very clearly states what can and can not be done with the code. Derivative works *must* be GPL. Every copy of GPL plainly states this, and saying otherwise here will never make it so, > We hold the copyright, and thus we are releasing a dual-licensed > product, as Craig pointed out TrollTech, MySQL AB, and many others do > in order to provide a commercial product along-side a non-commercial > GPL product. The difference is, those groups release a product under dual licenses simultaneously. the code base is identical, or at least I found no mention in my search last night that it is otherwise. The motivation for that, I discovered, is not to have separate forks, some of which have features people would be willing to pay for. It is because they have users among their user base who incorporate their product into their own code bases, which are closed source or otherwise non-GPL compatible. IOW, those users can't afford to have the GPL "infect" their own code base, forcing the code base from closed source to open. So, these users are willing to pay for the alternative license. they get the right to use the code as they need to, in a closed source manner, but they do *not* (AFAICT) get *different* code. They get that intangible right of usage (a different license) for their money, and perhaps increased or favorable support and other services. This is *very* different from what you are proposing to do. Again I ask, have you really run it past a lawyer familiar with the intellectual property issues surrounding GPL code?Have you queried FSF to see if your plan is compatible with GPL? > We are not breaking new ground here, and there is no legal debate > about whether a person who holds the copyright can license it in any > way they like. I don't know if it is new or not, but it most certainly is not the same ground as trod upon by the examples you quoted above. And yes, that you are proposing to license a derivative work of GPL code that is no longer compatible with GPL is new grounds to me. > This is a time-tested business model for predominantly Open Source > companies. It is not the only one, but it is one that works and is > well within the rights of copyright holders. It is *not* true that your "ransomware" approach is tried and true. A non-GPL fork is *never* acceptable, and it has to do with the terms of GPL, not any business model or not. > > There is no "legal mess" that we can get into, as we are the copyright > holders. The GPL doesn't create an obligation in us to continue to > provide all of our future work for free Not "free as in beer", but it does create an obligation to make it "free as in speech" forever. You simply can not un-GPL code. You may charge for the distribution of GPL code as the market will bear, but you can not impose the obligation to charge on anyone else. > , nor does it obligate us to continue to license our work in the same > way we have in the past. Absolutely it does require that you continue to license it under the GPL. If you want to dual license it under another compatible license, that is fine. But incompatible licenses added to GPL are *not* fine. This is all in plain English in the GPL itself. If your attorneys advised you differently, then maybe it is worth considering getting a second opinion. > We are not altering the license of the already GPL version of > Virtualmin, and we have no desire to do so. We are both Open Source > fanatics and have been for far longer than it has been trendy to be > so, and we will continue to work on Open Source projects (including > Webmin, Usermin, and Virtualmin GPL). I know you guys have been at this a long time. My private email has contained surprises that folks as experienced as you are so far off base on this matter. > > I hope this clears things up for anyone who might have questions about > the license. I hope my message has people looking more closely into the matter instead of taking a "wish it were so" approach. After all, jsut last month the Mambo/Joomla developers split from he actual copyright holder, the developers feeling the product should be GPL only, and Miro (An Australian entity) signaling that they wanted to dual -license the code in the future. It is not so simple. > > I certainly encourage you to query legal council, if you reckon we > (and MySQL AB and TrollTech and AMD and Perl Foundation and dozens or > hundreds of other entities who offer products under the GPL and some > other license, whether proprietary or otherwise) are all wrong about > how we can license our own software. None of them have the same licensing scheme as you do, tot he best of my knowledge. If you know otherwise, feel free to show me where. The FSF is the definitive place to start with licensing issues. Look at http://www.fsf.org/fsf/licensing for example. Note that below there it states: "Members of the Free Software community are encouraged to consult with the FSF regarding licensing issues." > But I assure you there is no debate in the GNU community about > dual-licensed code being permissible. In fact, there have been a > number of official GNU projects (i.e. Ghostscript) that were > dual-licensed. > Nothing to debate here. Really. Simply not true. Some legal risks: 1 - One of your Pro customers will go ahead and release the sw anyway under the claim that it is GPL. 2 - A Pro customer will claim the don't need to pay you after delivery on the same basis. 3 - Copyright and licensing issues could infect OpenCountry products should they include the Pro version. Their attorneys, associated, with the venture capital community here in Silicon Valley, will certainly go over the licensing of all code with a fine tooth comb. If code is improperly licensed, it is a serious risk factor to the investors, and so OpenCountry has fiduciary obligations to make sure it is not so. If you are looking for a second (and trustworthy source of legal opinions) why not ask them to put you in touch with their guys. 4 - Someone contacts FSF compliance group with your dual licensing scheme and FSF comes after you to get back into compliance, and then your paying customers look for ways to recover their charges as whatever contracts you had with them may no longer be enforceable (depending on the wording of course) 5 - Someone gets in touch with OpenCountry and asks them to look into the licensing terms, and if they are not satisfied, it puts at risk the question of sponsorship terms. 6 - someone else makes the claim that at least part of the copyright, even a single line of code, is held by them,not you, and thus they are entitled to at least some of your revenue. This is similar to (but not exactly the same as) the SCO case. I too am an open source fanatic. I think as a community we have a lot better things to do then get bogged down in licensing matters like this in the courts. It sucks the air out of the movement, and it makes it harder to pursue legitimate and effective business models. It does this by creating the ability for closed source advocates to spread FUD. This is a matter easily resolved. Contact FSF discretely or even anonymously. See what they say. I understand your desire to get paid for the work yo do. We saw this day coming at Cobalt many years ago, when this type of software would be widely needed but very difficult to charge for, the investment and entrepreneurial communities here continue to have a very active discussion on business models surrounding open source code, and the jury is still out. But all discussions are premised on adhering to the original license of the code, and it is widely accepted that once a code base is GPL'd it can never be undone. Perhaps a proprietary fork can be made later if, and this is a big if, here is a closed-source fork from the very beginning. IIRC this was the history of Ghostscript, but I may very well be wrong about that. But I know of no examples where a derivative work of GPL code was deemed proprietary, even for a period of time, with the intent of GPL'ing it later, and having FSF actually say that met the terms of GPL. Yet, in a nutshell, this is precisely what you are planning to do. Part of being an Open source fanatic is understanding the terms of the licenses, and what the implications are. I think creating a new company is a good idea. In the case of Mambo, last month it was a foundation, but whatever, that is not important. That there is an entity tat has been assigned the copyrights (it has, hasn't it?) is a good thing because it allows businesses to scale. It also (assuming yo set it up right) might protect you personally from any legal liabilities due to licensing matters. But that is way more complicated legal issues then I can even begin to outline because IANAL. Still, it is the right thing to do. When I was at Cobalt, we had developers from Samba and Linux Kernel on staff. IIRC, before we released any products that used the code they created, we needed to provide that back to the organizations, all under the terms of GPL. Not only that, but the code itself was included on the machines we built. That meant that anyone else was free to come out with competing products, and that was a risk we took. Similarly, that someone else is getting a product you release, whether they pay for it or not, does not grant them special rights under the GPL. You *must* release the code if you release the product. Similarly, if OpenCountry releases the Pro version as part of its products, but does not release the code, then it could be held in violation of GPL as well. Extremely unlikely they are going to go to bat for you in that case. Really better to look at this carefully, and discuss with others who are legally qualified and you trust to advise you on if these issues are valid or not. Frankly, it should be part of the business plan for your new company whether I raised the issues or not. So, if you ask folks like your IP attorneys, and FSF, and maybe even OpenCountry, and they are satisfied, then I will be happy to stand corrected. But I don't have anything really to lose here except a little pride. You are looking to expand your livelihood, and I want you to be able to do that, but I am suggesting you have horse blinders on and should take them off before you get going to fast. I am also suggesting to you (and I could discuss this off list) that with the blinders off, there are better ways to make a buck of such a fine product then a questionable licensing scheme. I hope you will tanke another look at these matters. It is not really so difficult to do, and people you ask will want to help you do the right thing. Best, Barry |
|
From: Nathan K. <na...@ve...> - 2005-09-16 20:09:16
|
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:00:00PM -0700, Barry wrote: > Joe Cooper wrote: Hi Barry and Joe --- First, a disclaimer. I am not a lawyer. I am not even an expert. But I do feel like I do have a pretty good grasp on copyright law and the GPL, at least as interpreted in the United States. IMHO, both of you are right on certain points: 1) If you own a piece of code, you can relicense it however you want. The GPL is a license to users, and as such grants rights where there once were none. It does not reduce the owner's rights that already exist. The 'code' in the abstract is not subject to copyright or the GPL, instead the particular released version is. If the owner wants to make a new version and release it under a different license, this is fine and good. It does not affect the instantiations already released under the GPL. 2) The question of whether one owns a piece of code is really prickly. If you sit in an empty room and write from scratch having never seen anyone else's code, you probably are free from copyright infringement and own that code (although as an aside if what you write is non-trivial that code you now own almost certainly violates someone's patent). But if you were looking at other implementations, you are at the whim of a court as to whether you are infringing. And at least in the US, if you have accepted and included code written by others (even one line snippets), in the absence of written transfer of copyright ownership from each of those contributors, you no longer own that code in entirety. The lack of ownership does not necessarily mean that you are doing anything illegal by re-releasing the code under a different license, it just means that you may be opening yourself up to some liability. Was the intent to contribute the code under the GPL? For that matter, did the contributor intend to grant you a license to release the code at all? In the absence of written documentation, this is for a court to decide. Personally, I think that written documentation is overkill, and I would feel reasonably comfortable depending on the goodwill of the contributors. But I am obviously not a court of law. > >The GPL is a license. A license dictates what folks who do not hold > >the copyright can do with code. It does not have any bearing on what > >the holder of the copyright can do with the code. > > That is absolutely incorrect. The GPL very clearly states what can and > can not be done with the code. Derivative works *must* be GPL. Every > copy of GPL plainly states this, and saying otherwise here will never > make it so, I'm pretty sure you are wrong about this, Barry. If one is using the GPL license to create the derivative work, then you are correct. But the owner of the code (with the caveats on ownership above) is not creating the work under the dictates of the GPL. As Joe states, the GPL dictates what rights are granted to others by the GPL, but says nothing about any other rights one may have to the same code. This is alluded to by last paragraph of section 7 of the GPL license, particularly the part after the last semicolon. It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice. In support of Barry, though, note also that the reference is to 'author/donor', with the implied donation under the terms of the GPL. Nathan Kurz na...@ve... |
|
From: Barry <we...@i1...> - 2005-09-16 22:26:08
|
Nathan Kurz wrote: >On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:00:00PM -0700, Barry wrote: > > >>Joe Cooper wrote: >> >> > >Hi Barry and Joe --- > >First, a disclaimer. I am not a lawyer. I am not even an expert. >But I do feel like I do have a pretty good grasp on copyright law and >the GPL, at least as interpreted in the United States. > >IMHO, both of you are right on certain points: > >1) If you own a piece of code, you can relicense it however you want. > The GPL is a license to users, and as such grants rights where > there once were none. It does not reduce the owner's rights that > already exist. The 'code' in the abstract is not subject to > copyright or the GPL, instead the particular released version is. > If the owner wants to make a new version and release it under a > different license, this is fine and good. It does not affect the > instantiations already released under the GPL. > > I was with you until the last sentence. The GPL absolutely *does* impose limitation on the copyright owner. In particular, all *derivative* works *must* be GPL'd. This is the essence of GPL. There is no escaping it, Except by: - not GPL'ing code in the first place, and alternative "open" licenses exist to address this issue. all this is explained in plain English on the fsf.org site and has been almost forever. - dual licensing with a license compatible with GPL (also discussed in plain English on the fsf.org site) Jamie and Joe freely chose the GPL for Virtual min 2+ years ago. As a result, all future versions, unless they are written form scratch, are derivative works and hence GPL. They don't have to like it, but it is the truth. As far as I know, no code that was once GPL'd has ever reverted to any other status, without the GPL attached. I would very much like to know of counter examples if they exist. >2) The question of whether one owns a piece of code is really prickly. > If you sit in an empty room and write from scratch having never > seen anyone else's code, you probably are free from copyright > infringement and own that code (although as an aside if what you > write is non-trivial that code you now own almost certainly > violates someone's patent). > Agreed. >But if you were looking at other > implementations, you are at the whim of a court as to whether you > are infringing. And at least in the US, if you have accepted and > included code written by others (even one line snippets), in the > absence of written transfer of copyright ownership from each of > those contributors, you no longer own that code in entirety. > > This is the crux of the argument in the SCO case. It has yet o make it to court, and SCO has not publicly said which code is infringing. So I guess it is still really an open question. In the particulars of the SCO case, at this point, having had plenty of time to put up or shut up, and having failed to take the opportunity, most people feel SCO is just blowing smoke. >The lack of ownership does not necessarily mean that you are doing >anything illegal by re-releasing the code under a different license, > > But it does leave you at risk later should th ownership be proved to not be as advertised. Not unlike the same reason why when you buy a house, a title search is undertaken and insurance on the results also taken. The risk of a mistake happening is low, but the potential price of that mistake is very high indeed. >it just means that you may be opening yourself up to some liability. >Was the intent to contribute the code under the GPL? For that matter, >did the contributor intend to grant you a license to release the code >at all? In the absence of written documentation, this is for a court >to decide. > \Right - that was why I mentioned there are in fact legal risks, when Joe suggested there were none. He could find his resources tied up in legal actions, even if he were to prevail, and what a waste that would be when it could be clarified now. >Personally, I think that written documentation is >overkill, and I would feel reasonably comfortable depending on the >goodwill of the contributors. But I am obviously not a court of law. > > Nor responsible for the releasability of a commercial project. Real companies, with real investors, check out these matters very carefully, and very routinely before a release. Providence of intellectual property, when the main asset of the company is that intellectual property, is critical. Without the documentation, no investors will come forward, at least not at a reasonable price. > > >>>The GPL is a license. A license dictates what folks who do not hold >>>the copyright can do with code. It does not have any bearing on what >>>the holder of the copyright can do with the code. >>> >>> Incorrect conclusion , and answered in plain English on the FAQ on the fsf.org site. >>That is absolutely incorrect. The GPL very clearly states what can and >>can not be done with the code. Derivative works *must* be GPL. Every >>copy of GPL plainly states this, and saying otherwise here will never >>make it so, >> >> > >I'm pretty sure you are wrong about this, Barry. > Read the info at fsf.org. I am correct. >If one is using the >GPL license to create the derivative work, then you are correct. > Which is the case under discussion. Virtualmin has been GPL for 2+ years - I quoted the timeline form the swelltech site already. Virtualmin Pro (presumably) will merely be new and extended features form the existing version. So it is a derivative work, of GPL code. Other cases are not what we are talking about here. >But >the owner of the code (with the caveats on ownership above) is not >creating the work under the dictates of the GPL. > They already did that 2 years ago. >As Joe states, the >GPL dictates what rights are granted to others by the GPL, but says >nothing about any other rights one may have to the same code. > > That is what Joe states, and I understand his desire for it to be that way. But it is not what the GPL states, not what the FSF states about the matter, and they are the owners of the GPL itself. >This is alluded to by last paragraph of section 7 of the GPL license, >particularly the part after the last semicolon. > > It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any > patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any > such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the > integrity of the free software distribution system, which is > implemented by public license practices. Many people have made > generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed > through that system in reliance on consistent application of that > system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is > willing to distribute software through any other system and a > licensee cannot impose that choice. > > Section 7 begins : "If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all." In short, it says if there is a court order that forces you to do something contrary to GPL, then the terms of the license are such that you may not distribute the code at all. In other words, it is all or nothing. So section 7 isn;t going to help make the case that something other then GPL, for a derivative work, based on any court order at all, is allowed. It clearly states the opposite of that. >In support of Barry, though, note also that the reference is to >'author/donor', with the implied donation under the terms of the GPL. > > Here are some useful clause form GPL: "For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. " "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope." " You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it" "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee." "Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program." "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. " " Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions." Personally, I think there is an easy way around these issues, but they are going to require that Jamie and Joe realize that the code for Virtualmin Pro *is GPL*. That the code is GPL does not prohibit them charging for it. Beyond that, I will leave it as a puzzle for a while to see if they or anyone else find the solution - I think the exercise will be educational indeed, more so then if I just spit it out. Best, Barry |
|
From: Nathan K. <na...@ve...> - 2005-09-16 23:29:16
|
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:24:23PM -0700, Barry wrote: > Nathan Kurz wrote: > >>>The GPL is a license. A license dictates what folks who do not hold > >>>the copyright can do with code. It does not have any bearing on what > >>>the holder of the copyright can do with the code. > >>> > >>> > Incorrect conclusion , and answered in plain English on the FAQ on the > fsf.org site. > > >>That is absolutely incorrect. The GPL very clearly states what can and > >>can not be done with the code. Derivative works *must* be GPL. Every > >>copy of GPL plainly states this, and saying otherwise here will never > >>make it so, > >> > >> > > > >I'm pretty sure you are wrong about this, Barry. > > > > Read the info at fsf.org. I am correct. If the FAQ you refer to is the one at <http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.htm>, I see this: I heard that someone got a copy of a GPL'ed program under another license. Is this possible? The GNU GPL does not give users permission to attach other licenses to the program. But the copyright holder for a program can release it under several different licenses in parallel. One of them may be the GNU GPL. The license that comes in your copy, assuming it was put in by the copyright holder and that you got the copy legitimately, is the license that applies to your copy. I would like to release a program I wrote under the GNU GPL, but I would like to use the same code in non-free programs. To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted, but legally there is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the copyright holder for the code, you can release it under various different non-exclusive licenses at various times. Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL? Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a "violation" of the GPL. However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL if done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral standing in the community. This agrees with my interpretation and with Joe's (ownership caveats aside), but unless I'm misinterpreting you I think it contradicts what you are saying. Am I somehow misinterpreting what you are saying? --nate |
|
From: Joe C. <jo...@sw...> - 2005-09-16 23:56:40
|
Nathan Kurz wrote: > Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the > developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL? > > Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for > others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer > itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, > this is not a "violation" of the GPL. > > However, if the developer does something that would violate the > GPL if done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral > standing in the community. > > This agrees with my interpretation and with Joe's (ownership caveats > aside), but unless I'm misinterpreting you I think it contradicts what > you are saying. Am I somehow misinterpreting what you are saying? Thanks for digging this up Nate. Exactly what we all needed to see (even Barry, perhaps, will believe it coming straight from the horses mouth). So, I'm losing moral standing in the community. I reckon my moral standing can take a down-tick without it hurting my self esteem too much. But, if anyone disparages Jamie's moral standing in any community, I'll fight 'em. Fisticuffs, mano y mano, the ol' sweet science, anytime, anyplace. Jamie is beyond reproach. I aint kiddin'. Y'all know I'm from Texas, right? ;-) Regards, Joe |
|
From: Barry <we...@i1...> - 2005-09-17 00:48:34
|
Joe Cooper wrote: > > Thanks for digging this up Nate. Exactly what we all needed to see > (even Barry, perhaps, will believe it coming straight from the horses > mouth). I never said there isn't a way out, or that it was even complicated. Only that the path you are proposing is not quite proper. The bottom line is, GPL'd code must be released to the user under GPL. You can pick and choose out of context quotes form the fsf site all you want, but that is the bottom line. The FSF site *does* give you the way out of this. I have hinted at it in my messages but left it as a exercise to the readers to find. This wasn't it, but it *is* getting warmer. > > So, I'm losing moral standing in the community. I reckon my moral > standing can take a down-tick without it hurting my self esteem too > much. Well, right, it is the moral standing that is going to cause you issues with other potential sponsors, who have fiduciary responsibility to make sure the products they include among their own products and services have clean license lines. > But, if anyone disparages Jamie's moral standing in any community, > I'll fight 'em. Fisticuffs, mano y mano, the ol' sweet science, > anytime, anyplace. Jamie is beyond reproach. I aint kiddin'. Y'all > know I'm from Texas, right? ;-) Oh so that is why you can't just take my advice and ask a IP attorney familiar with GPL issues? ;) You do have one or plan to have one if you are gong to have a corporation based on developing such code, right? I can possibly help you find one that won't take an arm and a leg for a retainer... Best, Barry |
|
From: Barry <we...@i1...> - 2005-09-17 00:53:23
|
Nathan Kurz wrote: > >This agrees with my interpretation and with Joe's (ownership caveats >aside), but unless I'm misinterpreting you I think it contradicts what >you are saying. Am I somehow misinterpreting what you are saying? > > Yes, that is part of the picture, but not all of it. The important point is that a program once GPL'd is always GPL'd. Nowhere on the fsf site does it say: - gpl can be revoked except by no longer distributing the program at all (but others are free to continue to do so) - a dual license could be attached to code that is already GPL'd that is not compatible with GPL to the extent that some of the code is FPL'd and some of it (perhaps on separate code branched?) is not. It is the latter that is what I believe Joe and Jamie are proposing in their words and deeds. However I do not believe it is what they are proposing in their hearts. IN their hearts, they just want to be paid for their work, which is fair and allowed under the GPL. I think they need to dig a little deeper into the available material (google "gpl dual license" for example) to find the way out of this little maze. They are correct that others have found their way out of the maze before. They are incorrect that the way others have done so is the way they are suggesting they want to do. Best, Barry >--nate > > > > >------------------------------------------------------- >SF.Net email is sponsored by: >Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download >it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own >Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php >- >Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li... >To remove yourself from this list, go to >http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list > > > > |
|
From: Roger B.A. K. <ro...@qu...> - 2005-09-17 15:34:53
|
Barry wrote: > The important point is that a program once GPL'd is always GPL'd. But code is GPL'd *to* *the* *user*. It's not "GPL'd" bing-bang-boom. A license applies to a product *and* *a* *user*. |
|
From: Freddie C. <fca...@sd...> - 2005-09-17 05:52:06
|
> Nathan Kurz wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:00:00PM -0700, Barry wrote: >>> Joe Cooper wrote: >> First, a disclaimer. I am not a lawyer. I am not even an expert. >> But I do feel like I do have a pretty good grasp on copyright law >> and the GPL, at least as interpreted in the United States. >> IMHO, both of you are right on certain points: >> 1) If you own a piece of code, you can relicense it however you >> want. The GPL is a license to users, and as such grants rights where >> there once were none. It does not reduce the owner's rights that >> already exist. The 'code' in the abstract is not subject to >> copyright or the GPL, instead the particular released version is. If >> the owner wants to make a new version and release it under a >> different license, this is fine and good. It does not affect the >> instantiations already released under the GPL. > I was with you until the last sentence. The GPL absolutely *does* > impose limitation on the copyright owner. In particular, all > *derivative* works *must* be GPL'd. This is the essence of GPL. There > is no escaping it Wrong. Derivative works are those created by *others*. The original coders are *not* subject to the license they choose when they *release* the code. --=20 Freddie Cash, CCNT CCLP Helpdesk / Network Support Tech. School District 73 (250) 377-HELP [377-4357] fc...@sd... hel...@sd... |
|
From: Roger B.A. K. <ro...@qu...> - 2005-09-17 15:32:26
|
Barry wrote: > I was with you until the last sentence. The GPL absolutely *does* > impose limitation on the copyright owner. This is fundamentally untrue -- impossible, in fact -- under the law. Licenses can only affect those licensed. The copyright owner is never licensed, so not a single word in the license applies to them. |
|
From: Joe C. <jo...@sw...> - 2005-09-16 23:01:23
|
Hi Barry and all, I'm going to try this again, and hopefully, it will put this thing to bed before the rest of the list gets tired of our legal ranting. Barry, the crux of your argument is that we, the copyright holders, cannot make a commercial variant of something that we have previously released under the GPL and that dual-licensing with the GPL and a GPL-incompatible license is not legally supportable. You've stated this in dozens of different ways, but it all comes down to whether we have a legal right to do so. As I mentioned before, this is a very common misconception about the GPL. So, let's dispel this myth first with a simple question: Who will sue the copyright holder for not following the letter of the license under which they have released their code? A copyright infringement lawsuit would have to be brought in order for any "legal mess" to occur, which is what you believe you're helping us avoid with this discussion. So, who will bring this lawsuit? You? The FSF? Virtualmin, Inc.? Of these three options, only one has a legal leg to stand on, and I'll give you three guesses as to which one it is. The first two guesses don't count. It ought to be obvious from this simple question, and the obvious answer, that there can be no such thing as a license that applies to the copyright holder (a license has to be enforceable under the law, and thus there has to be someone with greater rights than the license grants). So, there goes the argument that we have to license every line of code we write for the rest of our lives under the GPL (whether it is part of Virtualmin or not). We simply don't, and no amount of arguing that we do is going to change the legal facts. I'm just not going to argue that point any further. If you still don't believe me, I'm sorry, there's nothing more I'm willing to say on the matter. Take it up with the FSF or an attorney, if you like. If you believe that we have the legal copyright necessary to license it to others under the GPL *despite starting out with a different license*, then you must believe we also have the legal rights necessary to license it under other terms. On to the other issues you've raised that are new to the discussion and worth covering: If you believe you have contributed code to Virtualmin that you would rather we not include, say the word and show me the code. Let's not be wishy-washy, and say "it may be that others, or even I"...Either you did or you didn't. I don't believe anyone has been misled into contributing code to Virtualmin without awareness that there had been a non-GPL version in the past and there would be a non-GPL version in the future. But if there is a piece of code that fits that description, point it out. There's no time like the present. I suspect you greatly over-estimate the amount of non-Jamie-authored code in any version of Virtualmin. OpenCountry has nothing to do with Virtualmin, Inc. or Virtualmin Professional. Virtualmin, Inc. is a Texas Corporation with two shareholders: Jamie Cameron and me. OpenCountry are a nice bunch of folks who have sponsored Webmin development, and I applaud them for their involvement. There is no need to pester them about licensing of Virtualmin...they'll have no clue what you're talking about. Anyway, the long and short of this issue is that a copyright holder is never subject to the license under which they distribute their own code, even if that license is the GPL. I'm out of ways to explain this, and until you come to understand this fact, we simply aren't going to end up talking about the same problem. If you don't want to take my word for it, take it up with anyone you like. The FSF won't be particularly happy to hear from you, but they might be willing to answer your questions (I am a core developer on another large Open Source project that approached the FSF about turning the project into a GNU project, and now I know their approach and when they have an interest in a project, and I can assure you they don't care one whit about Virtualmin). If you'd like to keep discussing it, let's make it private, as this isn't really relevant to Webmin. I just posted the announcement here as I know there are quite a few folks here who in the past had shown an interest in the ransom or GPL version of Virtualmin. Just thought I'd fill them in on what we've been working on, and I really didn't intend to start a firestorm about licensing. Regards, Joe |
|
From: Thomas E D. <ed...@al...> - 2005-09-16 23:31:26
|
Hello all!, This thread is getting old. We have all enjoyed virtualmin _FREE_ for a long time!! If Joe wants to make a dollar for his hard work, _GREAT_!! He deserves it! I have been very greatful for what he has done. I probably will never purchase the "Professional" version. Many may and that's your prerogative just as it is mine not to. I don't have the need. I just have a few virtual domains that I own and operate. Joe has promised all the features of the "Professional" version in the _FREE_ Virtualmin but delayed, so what's the beef? My system operates on CentOS a derivative of RedHat Enterprise Linux. I am greatful RedHat makes their source rpms publicly avaliable as I cannot afford to pay for the support of their GPL'd product. Without people such as Joe and RedHat, we'd all be bowing to Bill!!!! 'nuff said! > -----Original Message----- > From: web...@li... > [mailto:web...@li...] On Behalf > Of Joe Cooper > Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 7:05 PM > To: web...@li... > Subject: Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license > > Hi Barry and all, > > I'm going to try this again, and hopefully, it will put this > thing to bed before the rest of the list gets tired of our > legal ranting. > > Barry, the crux of your argument is that we, the copyright > holders, cannot make a commercial variant of something that > we have previously released under the GPL and that > dual-licensing with the GPL and a GPL-incompatible license is > not legally supportable. You've stated this in dozens of > different ways, but it all comes down to whether we have a > legal right to do so. As I mentioned before, this is a very > common misconception about the GPL. So, let's dispel this > myth first with a simple question: > > Who will sue the copyright holder for not following the > letter of the license under which they have released their code? > > A copyright infringement lawsuit would have to be brought in > order for any "legal mess" to occur, which is what you > believe you're helping us avoid with this discussion. > > So, who will bring this lawsuit? You? The FSF? Virtualmin, Inc.? > > Of these three options, only one has a legal leg to stand on, > and I'll give you three guesses as to which one it is. The > first two guesses don't count. > > It ought to be obvious from this simple question, and the > obvious answer, that there can be no such thing as a license > that applies to the copyright holder (a license has to be > enforceable under the law, and thus there has to be someone > with greater rights than the license grants). So, there goes > the argument that we have to license every line of code we > write for the rest of our lives under the GPL (whether it is > part of Virtualmin or not). We simply don't, and no amount > of arguing that we do is going to change the legal facts. > I'm just not going to argue that point any further. If you > still don't believe me, I'm sorry, there's nothing more I'm > willing to say on the matter. Take it up with the FSF or an > attorney, if you like. If you believe that we have the legal > copyright necessary to license it to others under the GPL > *despite starting out with a different license*, then you > must believe we also have the legal rights necessary to > license it under other terms. > > On to the other issues you've raised that are new to the > discussion and worth covering: > > > If you believe you have contributed code to Virtualmin that you would > rather we not include, say the word and show me the code. > Let's not be > wishy-washy, and say "it may be that others, or even > I"...Either you did > or you didn't. I don't believe anyone has been misled into > contributing > code to Virtualmin without awareness that there had been a non-GPL > version in the past and there would be a non-GPL version in > the future. > But if there is a piece of code that fits that description, > point it > out. There's no time like the present. I suspect you greatly > over-estimate the amount of non-Jamie-authored code in any version of > Virtualmin. > > > OpenCountry has nothing to do with Virtualmin, Inc. or Virtualmin > Professional. Virtualmin, Inc. is a Texas Corporation with two > shareholders: Jamie Cameron and me. OpenCountry are a nice bunch of > folks who have sponsored Webmin development, and I applaud them for > their involvement. There is no need to pester them about > licensing of > Virtualmin...they'll have no clue what you're talking about. > > > Anyway, the long and short of this issue is that a copyright > holder is > never subject to the license under which they distribute > their own code, > even if that license is the GPL. I'm out of ways to explain > this, and > until you come to understand this fact, we simply aren't > going to end up > talking about the same problem. > > If you don't want to take my word for it, take it up with anyone you > like. The FSF won't be particularly happy to hear from you, but they > might be willing to answer your questions (I am a core developer on > another large Open Source project that approached the FSF > about turning > the project into a GNU project, and now I know their approach > and when > they have an interest in a project, and I can assure you they > don't care > one whit about Virtualmin). > > If you'd like to keep discussing it, let's make it private, as this > isn't really relevant to Webmin. I just posted the > announcement here as > I know there are quite a few folks here who in the past had shown an > interest in the ransom or GPL version of Virtualmin. Just > thought I'd > fill them in on what we've been working on, and I really > didn't intend > to start a firestorm about licensing. > > Regards, > Joe > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is sponsored by: > Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App > Server. Download > it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own > Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php > - > Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at > web...@li... > To remove yourself from this list, go to > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list > |
|
From: Barry <we...@i1...> - 2005-09-17 01:05:36
|
Thomas E Dukes wrote: >Hello all!, > >This thread is getting old. > >We have all enjoyed virtualmin _FREE_ for a long time!! If Joe wants to >make a dollar for his hard work, _GREAT_!! He deserves it! > > Me too! I agree he and they (Jamie too!) deserve it! >I have been very greatful for what he has done. > Me too! >I probably will never >purchase the "Professional" version. > I might someday, or at least put in a good word, but they haven't discussed licensing terms yet. >Many may and that's your prerogative >just as it is mine not to. I don't have the need. I just have a few >virtual domains that I own and operate. Joe has promised all the features >of the "Professional" version in the _FREE_ Virtualmin but delayed, so >what's the beef? > > The beef, in a nutshell, is that doing so appears to be an unprecedented interpretation of the GPL. I am willing to stand 100% corrected and say so publicly if someone shows where this is an accepted interpretation of the GPL by the fsf, and the gpl defense community as a whole. >My system operates on CentOS a derivative of RedHat Enterprise Linux. I am >greatful RedHat makes their source rpms publicly avaliable as I cannot >afford to pay for the support of their GPL'd product. > > They do so as a convenience really - but the source code to everything is available under one open license or another, and is available. You *could* build it all form the source code itf you wanted to. That this is a messy operation is precisely what caused distros to arise in the first place, and people were willing to pay for the convenience of the same features they could get at more trouble. The point is, the RPMS that redhat gets some people to pay for are precisely available from other places in source code version. If Vmin was to be available in a more convenient form for a charge, with the same feature set, or maybe a cooler skin was available for a price, or better service, then that would be something else. >Without people such as Joe and RedHat, we'd all be bowing to Bill!!!! > > I use redhat too (or at least Fedora) but they have had to confront these same issues, as has every open source, and especially GPL project eventually. >'nuff said! > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: web...@li... >>[mailto:web...@li...] On Behalf >>Of Joe Cooper >>Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 7:05 PM >>To: web...@li... >>Subject: Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license >> >>Hi Barry and all, >> >>I'm going to try this again, and hopefully, it will put this >>thing to bed before the rest of the list gets tired of our >>legal ranting. >> >>Barry, the crux of your argument is that we, the copyright >>holders, cannot make a commercial variant of something that >>we have previously released under the GPL and that >>dual-licensing with the GPL and a GPL-incompatible license is >>not legally supportable. You've stated this in dozens of >>different ways, but it all comes down to whether we have a >>legal right to do so. As I mentioned before, this is a very >>common misconception about the GPL. So, let's dispel this >>myth first with a simple question: >> >>Who will sue the copyright holder for not following the >>letter of the license under which they have released their code? >> >>A copyright infringement lawsuit would have to be brought in >>order for any "legal mess" to occur, which is what you >>believe you're helping us avoid with this discussion. >> >>So, who will bring this lawsuit? You? The FSF? Virtualmin, Inc.? >> >>Of these three options, only one has a legal leg to stand on, >>and I'll give you three guesses as to which one it is. The >>first two guesses don't count. >> >>It ought to be obvious from this simple question, and the >>obvious answer, that there can be no such thing as a license >>that applies to the copyright holder (a license has to be >>enforceable under the law, and thus there has to be someone >>with greater rights than the license grants). So, there goes >>the argument that we have to license every line of code we >>write for the rest of our lives under the GPL (whether it is >>part of Virtualmin or not). We simply don't, and no amount >>of arguing that we do is going to change the legal facts. >>I'm just not going to argue that point any further. If you >>still don't believe me, I'm sorry, there's nothing more I'm >>willing to say on the matter. Take it up with the FSF or an >>attorney, if you like. If you believe that we have the legal >>copyright necessary to license it to others under the GPL >>*despite starting out with a different license*, then you >>must believe we also have the legal rights necessary to >>license it under other terms. >> >>On to the other issues you've raised that are new to the >>discussion and worth covering: >> >> >>If you believe you have contributed code to Virtualmin that you would >>rather we not include, say the word and show me the code. >>Let's not be >>wishy-washy, and say "it may be that others, or even >>I"...Either you did >>or you didn't. I don't believe anyone has been misled into >>contributing >>code to Virtualmin without awareness that there had been a non-GPL >>version in the past and there would be a non-GPL version in >>the future. >> But if there is a piece of code that fits that description, >>point it >>out. There's no time like the present. I suspect you greatly >>over-estimate the amount of non-Jamie-authored code in any version of >>Virtualmin. >> >> >>OpenCountry has nothing to do with Virtualmin, Inc. or Virtualmin >>Professional. Virtualmin, Inc. is a Texas Corporation with two >>shareholders: Jamie Cameron and me. OpenCountry are a nice bunch of >>folks who have sponsored Webmin development, and I applaud them for >>their involvement. There is no need to pester them about >>licensing of >>Virtualmin...they'll have no clue what you're talking about. >> >> >>Anyway, the long and short of this issue is that a copyright >>holder is >>never subject to the license under which they distribute >>their own code, >>even if that license is the GPL. I'm out of ways to explain >>this, and >>until you come to understand this fact, we simply aren't >>going to end up >>talking about the same problem. >> >>If you don't want to take my word for it, take it up with anyone you >>like. The FSF won't be particularly happy to hear from you, but they >>might be willing to answer your questions (I am a core developer on >>another large Open Source project that approached the FSF >>about turning >>the project into a GNU project, and now I know their approach >>and when >>they have an interest in a project, and I can assure you they >>don't care >>one whit about Virtualmin). >> >>If you'd like to keep discussing it, let's make it private, as this >>isn't really relevant to Webmin. I just posted the >>announcement here as >>I know there are quite a few folks here who in the past had shown an >>interest in the ransom or GPL version of Virtualmin. Just >>thought I'd >>fill them in on what we've been working on, and I really >>didn't intend >>to start a firestorm about licensing. >> >>Regards, >>Joe >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------- >>SF.Net email is sponsored by: >>Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App >>Server. Download >>it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own >>Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php >>- >>Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at >>web...@li... >>To remove yourself from this list, go to >>http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list >> >> >> > > > > >------------------------------------------------------- >SF.Net email is sponsored by: >Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download >it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own >Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php >- >Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li... >To remove yourself from this list, go to >http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list > > > > |
|
From: Nathan K. <na...@ve...> - 2005-09-17 04:29:16
|
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 06:05:06PM -0700, Barry wrote: > The beef, in a nutshell, is that doing so appears to be an unprecedented > interpretation of the GPL. > > I am willing to stand 100% corrected and say so publicly if someone > shows where this is an accepted interpretation of the GPL by the fsf, > and the gpl defense community as a whole. I appreciate your willingness to test the idea. I think both of us are more interested in learning what the actual answer is, rather to simply trying to convince people we are right. It's just that we are both equally convinced that we are right. So... Exactly what proof would you accept? I'm a little leary of the 'and' in your last sentence, since it would be hard to establish the 'as a whole' part. Is there an individual of suitable stature (employed or not by the FSF) whose opinion you would be willing to trust? And exactly which interpretation we are talking about? Can we state it as: "Assuming that a previous version of a body of code has been made available under the GPL, is it necessarily illegal for the undisputed owner of that code to offer to license a newly created derivative of that code under terms not compatible with the GPL?" Depending on your choice of arbitrator (and any revisions to the question), I'd be willing to wager up to $1,000 USD on a 'no' answer. The money would be escrowed in advance, you would win on a 'yes', and the bet would be cancelled on any answer requiring equivocation. Or I could also be happy with a smaller token bet if you would prefer. Nathan Kurz na...@ve... Joe: I realize this discussion isn't specific to Webmin, but I think it is a very important one. If future developers are afraid to license code under the GPL because of fear that it can then never be used under anything but the GPL, I fear it will harm the future of open source software. And if I'm wrong, well, it would be worth a considerable sum to me to find that out now. But if you really want this discussion to go away, request again and I'll disappear. |
|
From: Craig W. <cra...@az...> - 2005-09-17 05:21:20
|
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 22:04 -0600, Nathan Kurz wrote: > > Joe: I realize this discussion isn't specific to Webmin, but I think > it is a very important one. If future developers are afraid to > license code under the GPL because of fear that it can then never be > used under anything but the GPL, I fear it will harm the future of > open source software. And if I'm wrong, well, it would be worth a > considerable sum to me to find that out now. But if you really want > this discussion to go away, request again and I'll disappear. ---- here's the deal - when you ask for a legal opinion, you control the answer by how the issue/question is framed. These things are litigated because not everything is as clear cut as it sometimes seems. If you want opinion about applicability of a licensing scheme is proper, you either A) hire an attorney with at least some reasonable expertise in IP or B) ask legal staff at FSF C) debate it ad infinitum on a mail list where it is certain never to be settled. At least if you want to debate it on this list - where is the 'licence' ? - it's not included with the development version that I just downloaded and that leads me to believe that there is no license accompanying the code as distributed - except for the LICENCE file that accompanies webmin which is clearly not a GPL license and clearly not a ransomware license. What is the license being discussed? The very vague description on Joe's web site? But since this is Joe and Jamie's baby, they are entitled to make the call of the license and have the responsibility for its suitableness and I don't see them asking for our opinion, in fact, I read just the opposite. Lastly, offering a wager on your opinion as a challenge against someone else's opinion to be judged by yet another opinion is rather silly, isn't it? Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. |
|
From: Barry <we...@i1...> - 2005-09-17 01:07:53
|
Joe Cooper wrote: > Hi Barry and all, > > I'm going to try this again, and hopefully, it will put this thing to > bed before the rest of the list gets tired of our legal ranting. > > Barry, the crux of your argument is that we, the copyright holders, > cannot make a commercial variant of something that we have previously > released under the GPL and that dual-licensing with the GPL and a > GPL-incompatible license is not legally supportable. That is not the crux of my argument at all. The crux of my argument is that you can not attach a dual license to previously GPL'd code base that is incompatible with the GPL. that is subtly different. If you showed me that the other companies you described as having dual licenses (they do have dual licenses, I agree) offer *different versions* under different licesnses, then that would be very interesting to me indeed. I culd find no indication that, e.g., the price paid by a SleepuCat customer buys them one line of code different then can be had for free under GPL at any time. I gooled "gpl dual license and found a interview with a SleepyCat exec who described this insome detail. I don';t have the url right now, but I am sure you can find it. > You've stated this in dozens of different ways, but it all comes down > to whether we have a legal right to do so. As I mentioned before, > this is a very common misconception about the GPL. So, let's dispel > this myth first with a simple question: > > Who will sue the copyright holder for not following the letter of the > license under which they have released their code? There are many ways pressure can be brought to bear with, or without suing. I already listed a bunch of them. But to answer you specifically, I suppose anyone who wants to can sue you. The courst will sort it out later, and even if tossed, it is a hit to your limited resources. > > > A copyright infringement lawsuit would have to be brought in order for > any "legal mess" to occur, which is what you believe you're helping us > avoid with this discussion. I haven't said one word about copyright infringements. I give you the benefit of the doubt as to having ownership of the copyright. this is not about that at all. > > So, who will bring this lawsuit? You? The FSF? Virtualmin, Inc.? Need not be a lawsuit, nor one aginst you. It could be open legal questions that will tangle up your relationship with OPenCountry, or generally the word mught get around that you are on questionable and unresolved licensing ground among potential sponsors or other financial backers of your ventures. This might cause their behavior to be at more arms-length with you then it would otherwise be, and prove detrimental to your ovewrall efforts, and hence cause you to be less successful for all your users. Seriously. Ask Opencountry about it. Michael Grove is a good guy, he will help you sort through this. I might ask him myself about these issues discretely, without referring to you specifically, the next time I bump into him around town. Or, if you would prefer me to ask him directly, that is fine by me. I want you to have all the success you could ever hope for and more. > > Of these three options, only one has a legal leg to stand on, and I'll > give you three guesses as to which one it is. The first two guesses > don't count. I am not suggesting that finding a lawsuit in your mail is your biggest risk at all. You are not going to be liek the guys from Kazaa/Skype slinking around avoiding lawsuit servers. It is the broad environment that will lead to your better success that I am concerned about. I am telling you, and you can ask around if you don't believe me, this is the kind of stuff of due diligence all the time. If your product is of questionable provenance, it is going to make it harder for you to find financial support. But, like I said, there is a way out of this maze, and it only depends on the way you word the plan. > > It ought to be obvious from this simple question, and the obvious > answer, that there can be no such thing as a license that applies to > the copyright holder (a license has to be enforceable under the law, > and thus there has to be someone with greater rights than the license > grants). Good. Then show me examples where companies released non-GPL'd versions of previously (and future as you plan to do) GPL'd code please. I know you plan, and will do, only a temporary fork. I don't mistrust you. But you keep claiming it is common without showing an example or three. > So, there goes the argument that we have to license every line of code > we write for the rest of our lives under the GPL (whether it is part > of Virtualmin or not). I never said that. GPL'ing Virtualmin only means derivatives of that code are GPL'd (and possibly dual licensed). If it is new code, then you can choose how to liecnse it. fsf.orgf discusses what constitutes derived code in some detail. You know and so does everyone else, this is just a canard, although I feel you are frustrated. Take a deep breath and ask your attorney's, or ask your partners at Opencountry to have their attorneys assist you. They are qualified, I am sure. > We simply don't, and no amount of arguing that we do is going to > change the legal facts. I'm just not going to argue that point any > further. If you still don't believe me, I'm sorry, there's nothing > more I'm willing to say on the matter. Take it up with the FSF or an > attorney, if you like. Careful what you wish for :) shouldn't you be the ones asking? I amean, if you already had legal advice on this matter, you would have stated that at the very beginning. > If you believe that we have the legal copyright necessary to license > it to others under the GPL *despite starting out with a different > license*, then you must believe we also have the legal rights > necessary to license it under other terms. I don't follow you their. Did you start out with a different license? Hs that license suddenly made a reappearance? are you basing virtualmin pro 1.0 on an old versions of virtualmin where this license applied? If yes to all of that, well, OK maybe you are most of the way there in my book, but you haven't posed it hat way until now, if at all. What is the other license, and is it GPL compatible? Is any of Virtualmin based on Webmin at the time it was GPL'd? If so, the code may be infected with GPL license requirements form the beginning, even if you didn't intend it to be. IANAL, but if that is the result you are relying on, you should discuss it with someone that is. > > On to the other issues you've raised that are new to the discussion > and worth covering: > > > If you believe you have contributed code to Virtualmin that you would > rather we not include, say the word and show me the code. I don't recall. A line here or there maybe. I know I have pointed out a bug or two, or asked for a minor feature that Jamie has repaired. Whether I dug through the code and suggested the fix, I don't know. If I did, consider it public domain. > Let's not be wishy-washy, and say "it may be that others, or even I"... It is not important if I did. I don;'t want any contributions out of the code even if I did. I suppose if you care to see if I ever posted some code or not you can search the archives. I think I probably did not, but I am not 100% sure. I also have made some adaptations for use on my own machines, never released to anyone, as I have done with other GPL'd code from other projects. What I have kept and what I have shared, I am not really sure - it is not a matter of wishy-washy. > Either you did or you didn't. I don't believe anyone has been misled > into contributing code to Virtualmin without awareness that there had > been a non-GPL version in the past and there would be a non-GPL > version in the future. Nah - I don't feel misled - I think the ransomware part has been around for a while, right? I jsut didn't notice the significance of it until your 2 recent announcements combined with the recent Mambo fiasco (which I also use). BTW, the Mambo developers were able to rapidly acquire the assistance of FSF attorney Eben Moglen to assist them sorting out matters regarding copyright holder-entity formation, code forks, funding, and GPL issues. I am trying to help you here - really I think you will do well to review their case and contact them. They are kindred should to all of us, and they have just wrestled with a lot of the issues you are wrestling with. > But if there is a piece of code that fits that description, point it > out. There's no time like the present. I suspect you greatly > over-estimate the amount of non-Jamie-authored code in any version of > Virtualmin. I don't know if there is *any* non-Jamie code. I rarely see code posted to this list. What is provided off-list I don't know, but based on the nature of most queries here, I suspect little to not much. Again, whether or not you/Jamie are the copyright holders is not the real issue here. > > > OpenCountry has nothing to do with Virtualmin, Inc. or Virtualmin > Professional. Virtualmin, Inc. is a Texas Corporation with two > shareholders: Jamie Cameron and me. OpenCountry are a nice bunch of > folks who have sponsored Webmin development, and I applaud them for > their involvement. There is no need to pester them about licensing of > Virtualmin...they'll have no clue what you're talking about. I suspect they would care very much about the fact hat products they intend to support and offer their clients are properly licensed as Open Source: http://www.opencountry.com/news/webmin.html I agree OpenCountry folks are nice. That is why I am asking you to ask them discretely for assistance in this matter. > Anyway, the long and short of this issue is that a copyright holder is > never subject to the license under which they distribute their own > code, even if that license is the GPL. I am not saying there isn't a pretty simple way out. > I'm out of ways to explain this, and until you come to understand this > fact, we simply aren't going to end up talking about the same problem. Point me to a web site that explains this with respect to the GPL and we are almost home free. I am willing to commit to the end of this exercise being that you have a dual licensed product. I am not so sure I am willing to commit to the end being that there are two code branches, brought back into sync periodically, where one of them is subject to GPL and the other not unless I see convincing evidence that others have done it and the gpl community at large is OK with it. > > If you don't want to take my word for it, take it up with anyone you > like. The FSF won't be particularly happy to hear from you, Why not? Their web site invites questions if you have already read their other material, in particular the FAQ. > but they might be willing to answer your questions (I am a core > developer on another large Open Source project that approached the FSF > about turning the project into a GNU project, and now I know their > approach and when they have an interest in a project, and I can assure > you they don't care one whit about Virtualmin). I think becoming a gnu project and answering questions about GPL issues are two entirely different things in their organization. I suspect the latter is probably much harder to get their interest in then the former. And I wouldn't pose the question in anything other then a neutral, non-project specific way anyway, so if for some reason they are disinclined to care about virtualmin and/or anything associated with you, well, you wouldn't be identifiable anyway. > > If you'd like to keep discussing it, let's make it private, as this > isn't really relevant to Webmin. Fair enough. I will be away over the weekend anyhow so maybe this will cool down and you can have a chance to reflect. Next week we can move forward offline. I don't think it will be difficult or rancorous. > I just posted the announcement here as I know there are quite a few > folks here who in the past had shown an interest in the ransom or GPL > version of Virtualmin. Just thought I'd fill them in on what we've > been working on, and I really didn't intend to start a firestorm about > licensing. Agreed you had some bad timing - but you recall I did ask some questions about forking and by extent licensing *before* the virtualmin announcement too. Best, Barry |
